Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Indeed it is.
I also see that is the purpose of our life, to find Love, which is the apex that any faith in God can impart unto our heart.
Regards Tony
Tackling the hard questions and quandaries of Faith
- Thread starter Tony Bristow-Stagg
- Start date
I also see that is the purpose of our life, to find Love, which is the apex that any faith in God can impart unto our heart.
Regards Tony
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works so that we can't boast of ourselves. Works are a product of our faith but they don't save us. They are an outward proof of God's manifestation in our lives. Words are everything. Jesus taught the parable of the sower on this very topic.
How do YOU embrace Jesus Christ?
Do you know that Christianity is the only religion that doesn't require anything of the believer? Just to simply accept the free gift from God. He did everything.
Isaiah 64:6 For we all have become like one who is [ceremonially] unclean [like a leper], And all our deeds of righteousness are like filthy rags; We all wither and decay like a leaf, And our wickedness [our sin, our injustice, our wrongdoing], like the wind, takes us away [carrying us far from God’s favor, toward destruction].
There is nothing apart from Jesus Christ that is good. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us with the acceptance of that free gift. Noone else can do that.
You can literally work till your death and it all means nothing to God without Jesus Christ.
Just my humble opinion based on my faith.
Aspiring to be a perfect human is an unattractive choice? And what is the other unattractive choice? As in "quandary, dilemma"?
I give up. Whatever "quandary" means to you remains unclear to me. To quote the immortal Inigo Montoya, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Love & Peace to you, and I should stay out of this discussion.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
Devout believers see their beliefs as true and talk about them as if it were. This can drive people with different points of view crazy. I get it.
In my short few months here, I've already seen more than a couple of people speaking pretty fiercely in favor of their beliefs, and sometimes snarkily or worse towards those who do not share their views. (some people, more than one or two, promoting usually some flavor of Christianity, have been a tad combative)
We have indeed heard from people who come from the point of view that their faith is the truth and express so affirmatively
In my humble view, Tony has been consistently the gentlest and most polite of those who have done so.
Just my two cents.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
God needs your invitation. God speaks in many ways
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
I think sometimes just dealing with objective reality can place you in a position of soldiering through quandaries.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,044
- Points
- 108
But some denominations speak of holy days of obligation, and see sacraments and church attendance as obligatory.
Usually there is the implied demand that people turn from what are regarded as their sinful ways, whatever their sins were "Go, and sin no more"
Others say salvation is a process and obedience is a condition
Some Christians indicate evangelism is an requirement
When preachers and lay believers rail against the morals of society and claim that the problem is lack of church attendance or lack of God in schools -- are they not implying that their religion brings with it some behavioral demands that would calm things down?
Now I'm curious to revisit what various other religions require of their followers. I don't know for example whether Taoism requires a lot or whether Falung Gong requires a lot, or Santeria...
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
According to the Bible Jesus + anything else = false doctrine. I could lay out scripture upon scripture but people are going to believe what they want to believe. For some reason some people feel they have to work for their salvation which undermines everything Jesus did on the cross. God gave this gift freely and it doesn't require you pay Him for it. It's already been paid for.
I see religious structures as the shell of the nut. The rituals preserve the living truth within. Some people get stuck in the ritual, chewing on the dry wood of the shell, and wondering why they don't seem to be getting any nourishment.
And they are often the ones insisting others should do the same and be like them.
Religion -- any religion -- may just be the entry point, imo?
Vasu Devan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
Well, I think I'd like to add my 2c to this thread.
Hard questions asked in religion usually come from the believer in one creed to another, in a notably different one. When we seek solely in scripture, either ours or theirs, for an answer to them, we are quite unlikely to find a satisfactory answer. There is a reason those religions diverged in the past even though some messengers may have been shared. Either in name or creed. Even within every a single religion, there are sects formed from disagreement over scripture.
Christianity - Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant
Islam - Shia, Sufi, Sunni
Hinduism - Shakthi, Shaiva, Vishnu, Advaitha
Buddhism - Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana
I tried reading the Quran but found it full of hate against unbelievers. I dont find that attribute in Muslims today so I can make my peace with Muslims but not with Islam.
Christianity was my family religion and was more acceptable to me. If I totally ignored the OT, and focused on Jesus more, there was much good as guidelines to follow in life and hardship. While I can agree with Jesus many places, I cannot agree with the official Church. I believe the Church tried to use the message of Jesus into one that promoted him to unnecessary divinity and used it to gain financial and political power for themselves. I refer to the first official Bible created by the grand meeting in Nicaea. Jesus did not write the New Testament. It is formed from many stories of him and his sayings but men chose which sayings are 'true'/'false'. He did not. So I agree with his message of love, not divinity. However, being the Son of God and his resurrection were key, required beliefs by the Church. I tried to diverge from scripture and use my knowledge of the world to rationalize them without being too dismissive of Christian belief.
"Son of God" may not be divine as the church claimed but rather simply him referring to himself as a child of God. As we all are. Christians refer to God as "Our Father" in prayer and there are numerous places in the Bible where Jesus refers to others as his "brothers and sisters". So we are all the Sons and Daughters of God.e.g.
You don't need to believe the virgin birth or the resurrection to accept the message of Jesus. The whole divinity aspect of Jesus for me is most likely created to define Jesus as the ultimate truth. I don't see dying on the cross as a sacrifice to save our souls and it is certainly not unique to Jesus. There are even Buddhist monks of the 20th century whole have sacrificed their lives by burning themselves alive while sitting calmly in meditation pose as a protest against governmental policies of oppression.
So, i try to explain what can't explain through scripture by looking inside and finding answers based on my beliefs and experiences. The idea is not to deny another but find ways to bond with another by finding my own, non-scriptural explanations that seem to work for me. For me the Word is not God. Life and Loving is.
Hard questions asked in religion usually come from the believer in one creed to another, in a notably different one. When we seek solely in scripture, either ours or theirs, for an answer to them, we are quite unlikely to find a satisfactory answer. There is a reason those religions diverged in the past even though some messengers may have been shared. Either in name or creed. Even within every a single religion, there are sects formed from disagreement over scripture.
Christianity - Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant
Islam - Shia, Sufi, Sunni
Hinduism - Shakthi, Shaiva, Vishnu, Advaitha
Buddhism - Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana
I tried reading the Quran but found it full of hate against unbelievers. I dont find that attribute in Muslims today so I can make my peace with Muslims but not with Islam.
Christianity was my family religion and was more acceptable to me. If I totally ignored the OT, and focused on Jesus more, there was much good as guidelines to follow in life and hardship. While I can agree with Jesus many places, I cannot agree with the official Church. I believe the Church tried to use the message of Jesus into one that promoted him to unnecessary divinity and used it to gain financial and political power for themselves. I refer to the first official Bible created by the grand meeting in Nicaea. Jesus did not write the New Testament. It is formed from many stories of him and his sayings but men chose which sayings are 'true'/'false'. He did not. So I agree with his message of love, not divinity. However, being the Son of God and his resurrection were key, required beliefs by the Church. I tried to diverge from scripture and use my knowledge of the world to rationalize them without being too dismissive of Christian belief.
"Son of God" may not be divine as the church claimed but rather simply him referring to himself as a child of God. As we all are. Christians refer to God as "Our Father" in prayer and there are numerous places in the Bible where Jesus refers to others as his "brothers and sisters". So we are all the Sons and Daughters of God.e.g.
- John 20:17: Jesus said to her [Mary Magdalene], “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and sisters and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
You don't need to believe the virgin birth or the resurrection to accept the message of Jesus. The whole divinity aspect of Jesus for me is most likely created to define Jesus as the ultimate truth. I don't see dying on the cross as a sacrifice to save our souls and it is certainly not unique to Jesus. There are even Buddhist monks of the 20th century whole have sacrificed their lives by burning themselves alive while sitting calmly in meditation pose as a protest against governmental policies of oppression.
So, i try to explain what can't explain through scripture by looking inside and finding answers based on my beliefs and experiences. The idea is not to deny another but find ways to bond with another by finding my own, non-scriptural explanations that seem to work for me. For me the Word is not God. Life and Loving is.
The fact is that Peter the closest apostle and even James, Jesus's own brother, preached the resurrection, as did John. The New Testament Apocrypha, the writings that surround the New Testament but were not chosen for inclusion, are all easily available and actually even on this website -- but they all preach the resurrection. I stand to be corrected?
New Testament Apocrypha – Interfaith
www.interfaith.org
To throw out the resurrection it is necessary to provide alternative documents because the fact is that whether a person likes it or not, the Resurrection is an essential part of the New Testament.
It was not decided at Nicea because Paul was already writing about it, within about 20 years after the crucifixion, after consultation with Peter, James and John.
The Resurrection is actually the most essential part of Christ's message. Nobody has to believe it, but it cannot be rejected without rejecting the essential core message of Christianity from the very earliest days from those closest to Jesus, imo
The video you posted comes up as age restricted and unavailable to view in this country.
Last edited:
Vasu Devan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
Yes, that and the hate in the OT god, amongst others, is why I'm not a Christian. Christian and Muslim dogma has a lot of hate.
Sorry. Strange. It's available in India. Maybe try a VPN? It just a video of a Buddhist monk burning himself alive in a public location. Maybe try going to YT and typing 'monk burn alive' in search and see what crops up.
IMO most of it was tribal hatred towards direct tribal enemies in a time of tribal life and tribal conflict.
To me Jesus in the parable of the good Samaritan extended consideration for others beyond the tribe, to include all people. Before that it was quite alright to mistreat others from another tribe, as long as you did not mistreat people from your own
Last edited:
Vasu Devan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 210
- Points
- 43
The OT god, killed men, women and children liberally. Whether he is god or not, I don't accept him as one to believe and worship. In fact, I doubt every creed that requires worship for its god before being accepted into the fold. When it becomes a rule, that is no longer a god of unconditional love. Eastern creeds require a lot less conditional love. Daoism is the closest path that matches my thinking. Its more philosophy than religion.
Churches need believers. Gods should not.
Last edited:
The Old Testament contains many books and passages. There is violence, but there is a lot more else. Do you ever read the Psalms?
Just to clarifiy a couple of points:
As others have argued, it would have been a lot easier for the Apostles to promote a new religion without the requirement of Incarnation or Resurrection. Both those elements were as much a stumbling block as they were 'unique selling points' – si I would argue if the 'Church' was interested in power only, it would have sidelined those two troublesome elements along the way. Without them it's a lot more palatable to a larger world audience.
The Canon was not defined at Nicaea. It was never discussed.
Constantine is supposed to have asked for 'a few score bibles' to be presented at the council, but whether these ever materialised (it was a big ask, and was probably one of those things that emperors ask for, that are never actually delivered).
What you mean is you don't have to accept Christianity to accept a generic message of love ...
OK, but, faith in the Divinity of Jesus and the Resurrection were credal declarations long before the church can be accused of 'financial and political power', so I know a lot of people would agree with you, but I think history tells a different story.
As others have argued, it would have been a lot easier for the Apostles to promote a new religion without the requirement of Incarnation or Resurrection. Both those elements were as much a stumbling block as they were 'unique selling points' – si I would argue if the 'Church' was interested in power only, it would have sidelined those two troublesome elements along the way. Without them it's a lot more palatable to a larger world audience.
Well that's just plain wrong.
The Canon was not defined at Nicaea. It was never discussed.
Constantine is supposed to have asked for 'a few score bibles' to be presented at the council, but whether these ever materialised (it was a big ask, and was probably one of those things that emperors ask for, that are never actually delivered).
And yet ... if you toss out His divinity as a fiction, then why not what he said about love?
No, they really weren't, but they were required because that's the truth of it. Life would have been easier if neither was true. Remember that Roman emperors were declared 'divine', Hellenic mysticism talks of 'divine possession', and resurrection again could have been presented in mystical terms, easily acceptable to both Jewish and Gentile audiences ... that insistence on physical Incarnation and Resurrection really put Christianity out on a limb.
Exactly. You rationalise it according to you. That's the argument Jesus had time and again.
Well you do, really.
What you mean is you don't have to accept Christianity to accept a generic message of love ...